I apologize for the lack of articles as of late. Work has taken up much of my free time over the past few weeks. Hopefully that will pass soon. In the mean time, I had a few thoughts on three similar topics that I wanted to share with you.

What does the term “hallowed ground” truly mean? Essentially, it is an area that is deemed to be sacred and set apart. Churches, for example, are said to be built on hallowed ground. The same is true for cemeteries and areas that have seen a great loss of life. So it was interesting that I’ve heard the term hallowed ground mentioned in three separate news stories over the past week.

During the debate over the proposed mosque near the World Trade Center site, President Obama stated that “Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.” But just how far does that hallowed ground stretch? Is it just the area around the footprints of the fallen buildings? The distance where debris fell into the surrounding blocks? Or is it arbitrary depending on what is being developed around it?

In a similar story, Mindy Crawford from the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote, “It is altogether fitting and proper that gambling be kept away from Gettysburg’s hallowed ground.” But where does the hallowed ground end? Just in the area where the main fighting took place? Within the National Park boundary? How about the greater area outside of the Park?

The last story I heard was a renewed debate over the Westboro Baptist Church and their protests at funerals for fallen soldiers. Chief US District Judge Fernando Gaitan struck down a Missouri law that barred inflammatory protests outside the funerals, stating that it violated the First Amendment by placing restrictions of free speech. In the law was a requirement to bar protests within 300 feet of the funeral.

So how should we define hallowed ground, and who should make the determination of where it begins and ends? These three examples about are difficult to resolve because it is emotion-based and subjective. Is it disrespectful to build a Mosque two blocks away from the World Trade Center? Or a casino a half-mile away from the Gettysburg National Park? How about protests outside the gates of a cemetery?

For me, the I think the last is the easiest to answer. I doubt a loving God would want his followers to protest the funerals of troops who died during war. There should be some limit on “where” such protests can be held. Such limitations have held up in court, since it is a common practice within Washington, DC to bar protests from certain areas around the Capitol building and White House.

The question over the casino would be the next easiest answer. The National Park engulfs a large area of the battle field as well as the neighboring cemeteries. Building a casino a half-mile away should not be an issue, especially since archaeologists will be brought in before any major ground-breaking and construction begins. Additionally, the casino could result in increased awareness of major Civil War battle site, and the revenue from the casino could increase the educational resources for visitors to the Park.

The hardest question is that for the Mosque. While it is true that it was Islamic terrorists that attacked the World Trade Center on September 11th, it wasn’t an act by Muslims as a whole (if so, then we would have to worry about 7 Million Muslims in the United States). So building a Mosque near the WTC site just for that narrow reason alone should not be an issue.

The issue comes to the politics behind building the Mosque. Reports show that there is a low population of Muslims in Lower Manhattan, so there isn’t a “demand” for the center in that area. Is the Mosque being built as a poke in the eye to Americans, or is it being built as a bridge to a better understanding of Islam? If it is for any reason other than a slight towards the United States, then I don’t see why it can’t be relocated. After all, if you are going to invest that much money, you would want it to be easily accessible for your congregation. However, if it is for the other reason, which it sounds like it is, then I’m sure the developer will find many more obstacles for development, making it financially prohibitive in the long run.

In short, I think you should take away from all of this one simple note. No matter what you do in life, stop and think about how others might view your actions and how it will impact their lives. In this faster pace life of ours, we tend to act first and think second. If we just slow that process down a little, we can take others into consideration, and make wiser decisions that not only benefit ourselves but also those around us. That, I think, would be a great way to remember all of those who went before us to give us this great nation we have today.

NOTE:  I will try to get the Political Blog Weekly published tomorrow.  If not, I will incorporate it into next weekends edition.

This is just breaking. For Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska has been reported dead following a plane crash. With him on the flight was former NASA Chief Sean O’Keefe, though it hasn’t been determined yet if he is also one of the deceased. Current reports state that, out of 10 people aboard the small personal aircraft, 5 have died in the crash outside of Dillingham, Alaska. More information to come tonight as details are made public.

While Tony Hayward (the CEO of BP) heads off to enjoy a yacht race in England and President Obama is off enjoying yet another golf outing, the oil continues to flow out of the damaged well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.  Fortunately for those along the Gulf Coast, powerful minds are hard at work.  Instead of pondering how to set a jib or which club to tee of with on the 17th hole, they are wondering if different chemicals, centrifuges, or new technology will help resolve the oil spill. 

One idea being floated is using nanotechnology to tackle the problem.  The University of Central Florida Research Foundation recently developed a process to use carbon filaments to break down surface oil and absorb it.  This absorption process is similar to a nano-tube sponge developed by Chinese scientists.  Not to be outdone, the University Pittsburgh has developed a liquid-resistant chemical nano-coating that, when applied to a cotton filter, will trap oil while allowing water to pass right through. 

In addition to nanotechnology, there is a new breed of oil skimmers making their way towards the Gulf.  One skimmer leaves the oil boom behind, relying on the motion of the machine to suck in the polluted water.  The screening process by this machine is similar to the machine developed with the support of Kevin Costner, where it uses a large centrifuge to separate the water and the oil.  Both machines make oil spill recovery possible and are more effective in open water where your classic boom is useless.

Not to be forgotten are the oil-dispersing agents that break up the surface tension of the slick as well as bacteria that “eats” the oil.  With this disaster being attacked from multiple angles, it is possible that the long-term damage to the Gulf can be minimized.  Unfortunately, it is taking longer than desired to have these options implemented, especially when you consider the size of the Gulf and the size of the spill.  So while BP and the Federal Government continue to debate who is in charge of the clean up, it is likely that things will continue to get worse until third-party companies and organizations decide to take the oil spill clean up into their own hand.

There was a lot of hope and hype leading up to President Obama’s first official Oval Office Address on Tuesday night.  Two months following the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform, the President addressed the public the first time in prime time to lay out the conditions of the Gulf of Mexico, the current response to the disaster, and his plan for the future.  Obama begins discussing the substance of the address by saying:

Because there has never been a leak this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. That’s why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge — a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.

As a result of these efforts, we’ve directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology. And in the coming weeks and days, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well. This is until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that’s expected to stop the leak completely.

Starting off with a positive message (even though he’s talking about a tragedy) was a good first step. Claiming that “90 percent of the oil” should be captured in the next few leaks will ease the fears shared by many who work and live along the Gulf coast. Seeing failed attempt after failed attempt by BP over the past two months has left a lot of doubt in ability of the oil company to limit or stop the flow of oil pouring out of the damaged well. But what happens if the government and BP fail to reach this 90% containment that the President has projected?

But make no mistake: We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever’s necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy.

It is difficult for the Federal Government to “make BP pay” for the clean-up of the oil in the Gulf. As history shows from the Exxon Valdez accident, the $2.5 Billion settlement against Exxon was cut down to only $500 Million. While BP has said they would ensure that they clean up the oil from the Gulf, there is no legal authority the government has to force them to pay for the total clean up.

From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the largest environmental cleanup effort in our nation’s history — an effort led by Admiral Thad Allen, who has almost 40 years of experience responding to disasters.

Here, I believe he is trying to clear the confusion over who was actually in charge of the emergency response. Many on the state and local level have found it frustrating when trying to deal with the government and BP, since it felt that both parties were indicating the other was in charge. Even Administration officials were saying (up till last week) that BP was responsible for the emergency response, not the government. This confusion has fueled much of the angst towards Obama and his lack of leadership in the response to the emergency.

Because of our efforts, millions of gallons of oil have already been removed from the water through burning, skimming and other collection methods. Over five and a half million feet of boom has been laid across the water to block and absorb the approaching oil. We’ve approved the construction of new barrier islands in Louisiana to try to stop the oil before it reaches the shore, and we’re working with Alabama, Mississippi and Florida to implement creative approaches to their unique coastlines.

“Our efforts.” That is an interesting choice of words. There is no doubt that the Coast Guard has been working around the clock, starting from the initial fire aboard the drilling platform to trying to limit the amount of oil that reaches the beach. However, much of the prevention and clean-up response has been handled by BP and not through the Government. In addition, the barrier island development on the coast of Louisiana was delayed almost a month from the point that Governor Bobby Jindal had asked the government for permission to start construction. While there is a valid concern over the impact that the barriers might have on tidal and current flows in the region, the green light should have been given much earlier. It would have been easier to stop construction of the barriers 30 days after the explosion than it was to clean up the oil that has already come ashore.

From this point onward, he makes a tangent and starts talking about the cap-and-trade legislation that is stalled in the Senate. In my opinion, I don’t think that should have been a part of the address that evening. It will take decades and numerous technological advances until we develop enough nuclear, solar, and wind generated electricity as well as a synthetic liquid that has the lubriction and molecular properties to replace our need of oil. For the past three decades, Administrations have promised a new source of energy and thrown billion of dollars towards technological research. Discussing this during the prime time address was a waste of time and was a distraction to the issue at hand. In the end, I would have to give the President a low grade for his first official Oval Office address as well as his leadership in the response of the crisis. May he, and any future President and emergency response coordinator, learn from the errors in this event so that when the next natural or man-made disaster occurs we have a more organized and effective response.